MUST WATCH! Currently, Toyota is POUNDING the "driver error" theory in hopes of winning the Koua Fong Lee v Toyota lawsuit currently in a Minnesota court case. Mainstream media not supplying the details given by author & advocate, Trudy Baltazar. See her blog for recent courtroom notes.

Law360, New York (January 07, 2015, 2:27 PM ET) -- Ford Motor Co. on Tuesday urged a West Virginia federal judge to reject a bid to compel the automaker to produce emails involving at least 34 vehicles over a 10-year period in a putative class action over an alleged unintended acceleration defect, saying it has already handed over thousands of documents.

The automaker slammed the lead plaintiffs’ assertion that Ford has been dragging its feet in producing the requested emails, telling the court that the “scope and breadth of discovery” sought in the suit is “exceedingly...

Below are some links to information on the Bookout v Toyota case in Oklahoma. This case along with the $1.2 billion Justice Department Criminal Fine over covering up unintended acceleration has caused Toyota some panic, no doubt!

About Me

I was the subject of an Automotive News article on May 13, 2002 regarding Toyota engine oil sludge. The title of the article was "Charlene's Web..." My efforts to network with similarly-affected vehicle owners online was highlighted. During that time, I was visited by Bruce C. Ertmann, then CEO of Customer Relations at Toyota. He flew out to speak with me. He also flew out to buy out a Highlander owner who had SLUDGE with just 12,000 miles on the odometer. I had hoped he would be open to hearing about the growing engine oil sludge problem in Toyota and Lexus vehicles. Alas, he was NOT interested in hearing about the thousands of other Toyota and Lexus owners who were coming forward to speak up about this engine-destroying condition. I tried to interest him in what the others were saying about the engine condition that was costing the owners thousands of dollars in repair when their engines had to be replaced. He told me the engine information was "proprietary"....you know, like the much-coveted information about Toyota's ETCS-i...and that he couldn't discuss that aspect. I felt he needed to know that upon OIL ANALYSIS, the engine oil was shown to be prematurely breaking down even with just 2,000 miles in the oil. I felt he needed to know that thousands (roughly 10,000 complaints in the Complaint Station under "Toyota" at the time) of other Toyota owners were going online to find answers. I wanted him to know that these vehicle owners were NOT happy to be BLAMED for improper maintenance and causing their own engine oil sludge. I couldn't help wondering WHY Mr. Ertmann traveled all that distance to visit with me...first at a local park I chose as a neutral location and then for nine hours at my local Toyota dealership in Fairfax, VA...IF he was not interested in hearing about all these seriously-impacted vehicle owners. WHY did he come that far then? Obviously, his mission was to intervene in my singular situation. He wasn't there to help the consumer-networked group. Perhaps he wanted to end my online presence in the engine oil sludge matter? Perhaps he was there for damage control? Perhaps he was there to help Toyota bury its head in the sand further? Perhaps he needed to keep up the corporate denial mode? Perhaps he didn't want to reveal the real reason Toyota and Lexus vehicles were FRYING the oil (yes...it looked just like goopy, burnt oil)? After all, WHY would a CEO of Customer Relations go to the trouble to single out a very online-vocal vehicle owner? I thought it was interesting that Mr. Ertmann, in addition to holding a business degree, holds an IT degree as well. His internet technology expertise is impressive! I wasn't so impressed, though, when while online in real-time via e-mail with Mr. Ertmann much later (because I guess I didn't shut up?), I experienced a strange computer intrusion which caused me to have, in effect, a computer crash. Yes, my internet security software program indicated lots of attempted malicious intrusion attempts previously, especially originating from California. BUT, that one intrusion put my computer out of commission at the time. So the big question is, does Toyota welcome information about a large group of vehicle owners experiencing major failures? Does it seek to uncover the real cause in these instances OR does it take an easier BLAME THE OWNER approach? Additionally, when Toyota comes out with "voluntary programs" or is forced to act after class action lawsuits, does it do so to the satisfaction of its customers? I sought to answer that question when I created the online Toyota Engine Oil Sludge petition long after Toyota claimed to have just 3200 affected sludge victims. The results of that petition...which gathered 3318 signatures despite DDoS on the site and petiton saboteurs...showed that Toyota was not honoring its public promises. It was STONEWALLING its loyal customers. Is that what it's doing in the sudden unintended acceleration debacle NOW? Is the Robert & Kathy Ruginis case just the tip of the iceberg? Have the voices of the victims not been yet heard publicly? Is there an urgent need to have public disclosure about an ETCS-i problem? Let's find out... Charlene McCarthy Blake ToyotaOwnersUniteforResolutionOnline.blogspot.com